If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, C.H. wrote:
> Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In > traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of > others, and that is completely unacceptable. Yet as a society we let people who normally drive as poorly as a drunk do so everyday. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:54:02 GMT, "C.H." >
wrote: >> MADD and other orgs achieved their goals and are now pushing for a new >> prohibition to continue their existance IMO. > >I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive >afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both >impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't >drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic. > Heh - that's what the substance abuse "treatment" industrial complex wants everyone to think - more money for them. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:54:02 GMT, "C.H." >
wrote: >> MADD and other orgs achieved their goals and are now pushing for a new >> prohibition to continue their existance IMO. > >I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive >afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both >impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't >drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic. > Heh - that's what the substance abuse "treatment" industrial complex wants everyone to think - more money for them. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com... >>>>John David Galt Jan 10, 5:06 pm > I agree. Granted that this requires judgment on the part of the police > officer, most cop cars these days have video cameras, & I've seen them > show a jury just how badly the guy was driving before the officer made > the decision to pull him over. That's how it should be done. > > So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the driver > is impaired. Of course not, but you just proved our point. It's NOT "DUI" if the driver is NOT impaired, now is it? So you can't very well have a driver that is not impaired guilty of DUI, now can you? Is that way too much logic for you? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com... >>>>John David Galt Jan 10, 5:06 pm > I agree. Granted that this requires judgment on the part of the police > officer, most cop cars these days have video cameras, & I've seen them > show a jury just how badly the guy was driving before the officer made > the decision to pull him over. That's how it should be done. > > So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the driver > is impaired. Of course not, but you just proved our point. It's NOT "DUI" if the driver is NOT impaired, now is it? So you can't very well have a driver that is not impaired guilty of DUI, now can you? Is that way too much logic for you? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com... >>>>ParrotRob Jan 10, 3:43 pm > I can't believe I'm responding to you, but absolutely yes! Drivers > should > be judged on how much they are impaired, rather than an arbitrary > numerical > value. I guarantee you there are millions of people who are much more > impaired at, say, .04% BAC than am I at the legal .08%. > > HAHAHA. Another one of these deadly DUIs who says "It's ok for me to do > it cause i actually drive better when i'm drunk." How many people have > you killed, psychopath. Either exactly as many as you have or less than you have. By the way, where exactly did I say it was OK for me to drive when I'm drunk? I believe I simply said I'm less impaired, now didn't I? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com... >>>>ParrotRob Jan 10, 3:43 pm > I can't believe I'm responding to you, but absolutely yes! Drivers > should > be judged on how much they are impaired, rather than an arbitrary > numerical > value. I guarantee you there are millions of people who are much more > impaired at, say, .04% BAC than am I at the legal .08%. > > HAHAHA. Another one of these deadly DUIs who says "It's ok for me to do > it cause i actually drive better when i'm drunk." How many people have > you killed, psychopath. Either exactly as many as you have or less than you have. By the way, where exactly did I say it was OK for me to drive when I'm drunk? I believe I simply said I'm less impaired, now didn't I? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:27:25 -0800, gcmschemist wrote: > > > x-posting trimmed... > > > > C.H. wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:48:49 -0500, Max wrote: > >> > >> Where did you get that number from? About every study about alcohol > >> and driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already are > >> affected from .03%. > > > > Do you have any links to substantiate this claim? > > Example: > > http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm > > Guaranteed not MADD influenced. This site is obviously not a scientific research paper. Is a cartoonish MADD-alike. Maybe there is real, scientific research to back up the claims, but it certainly isn't in evidence on that particular page. > >> > And the drivers that cause the accidents all have BAC's around ..16 > >> > to .25, and if you are at .25 you are really hammered and you'll know > >> > it. > >> > >> Nonsense. Read the papers. Most of the drunk drivers who get checked > >> after a crash are somewhere between .05% and 0.1% > > > > What papers? Newspapers? I would prefer to get real, hard data. > > Newspapers usually print what is in the police report and you can be sure > the police report errs on the high side (revenue increase). No matter what is published in newspapers, it is not controlled, scientific data. Anecdotal, yes. Rigorous research, no. > >> Most non-alcoholics are not > >> even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%. > > > > I should think not. 0.50% BAC would put most all humans in an alcohol > > coma, at the very least. 1.5% would be very difficult to achieve, > > outside of some embalming process. > > Sorry, I meant .15%. In Germany BAC is measured in Promille (tenth of a > percent), so 1.5 Promille = .15%. 0.15% is not beyond the realm of functional for plenty of people, even non-alcoholics. Due to liver damage, alcoholics often have a *decreased* tolerance for alcohol. Being able to walk, talk, play darts or some other physical activity does not in any way imply ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. BAC, in and of itself, is not an accurate indicator of intoxication. A 45kg woman at 0.03% and a 90kg man at 0.03% are not equally impaired. There have been some Swedish studies to suggest that people who are hung over (0.00% BAC) can be less fit to drive than someone over the legal BAC. The same goes for sleepy drivers. HAND, E.P. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
528i vs 530i vs 540i USA Versions | FSJ | BMW | 37 | January 16th 05 06:38 PM |
MFFY Driver Get His Come-Uppance | Dave Head | Driving | 25 | December 25th 04 06:07 AM |
Speeding: the fundamental cause of MFFY | Daniel W. Rouse Jr. | Driving | 82 | December 23rd 04 01:10 AM |
There I was, Driving in the Right Lane... | Dave Head | Driving | 110 | December 18th 04 02:07 AM |